Important, but not statistically?

The problems with trees and statistics.

European Voice

1/4/12, 9:30 PM CET

Updated 4/12/14, 10:31 PM CET

Eric Johnson wrote in your opinion pages that official environmental accountants treat the effect of harvesting trees as carbon-neutral (“Don’t forget to count the trees”, 21 December 2011-4 January 2012).

What are they thinking? One of the most basic facts that the general public knows about climate change is that trees capture carbon. We are, as a result, constantly told that the Amazon is a ‘carbon sink’ and that we need to protect our forests. But when a tree is cut down, carbon accounts remain unchanged.

And then, in the second commentary on the page, “A public-private road to bankruptcy”, we discover, thanks to Juraj Mesík, that EU statisticians suggest that governments should not book their contributions to public-private partnerships on balance-sheets. That is an invitation to concealment by governments that have, in many cases, lauded the economic virtues of public-private partnerships.

How many government statistics should carry this warning?: ‘What we tell you is important, we treat as unimportant. Our figures offer only clues to the reality. We leave the reality to ourselves – but don’t be surprised if we too have little clue what the reality is. Does this make you mistrust us? Does this make you more worried about our finances and our environment? Don’t worry: we’re happy to bury your anxieties where we buried this information – in the small print.’